Canon 17-40 L or Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens

<p>Hello<br>

My name is Greg and I am thinking about buying the Tamron 17-50 vc 2.8 lens or the Canon 17-40 F4 L lens for my 50d. I am going to use it for landscape mainly. I have a 50d and hope to eventually go to a Mark II next year. Can anyone recommend which one is better for about $ 700. I will be printing 16 by 20.<br>

Thanks a lot and happy holidays</p>

<p>Reviews do not seem to show significant difference betwen the two. The Canon has the better build, the Tamron the additional reach.<br>

My preference wouldbe for the Tamron. Although I think either would do you well, the additional 10mm range of the Tamron would make it far more versatile. I have the Canon 17-55 and bought it because although the 17-40 was excellent I found myself wanting a little more from a lens I hoped to have on my camera around town.</p>

<p>You say you want to move to a 'Mark II'. Do you mean a 5DMkII? The Tamron will not fit on 35mm bodies and the 17-40 would be yor better bet. Normally I would say buy lenses for the camera you have now, not for one you <em>might</em> get because you may find yourself frustrated by limitations (of whatever sort) in the meantime. So unless getting the 5D is a definite probability go for the Tamron.</p>

<p>Just to confuse matters, the new Sigma 17-70 is getting very good reviews.</p>

<p>When you move to Mark II do you still intend to keep the 50D or get rid of it ? If you still plan to continue using 50D, the Tamron is a very good choice for the f/2.8 and VC. But in the future if plan to shoot only with the Mark II, I don't see any point in investing in the Tamron. I have the non-VC version, it a very good lens and I have printed images up to 20*30, using it on a 30D without any issue. </p>

<p>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 will be significantly sharper on the 50D but if you want a lens that works on both bodies the 17-40 (or another lens) could be the better option<br>

see -<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0</p>

<p>Tough choice ! I read great reviews on both lenses. A few years ago the 17-40mm was 'The' lens to have have in your camera bag. The Tamron 17-50mm is also highly regarded, so much that David Crockett from shootsmarter.com rated it as 'Pro' level lens, right up there with the Canon 24-70mm. I thought about both lenses when I wanted a light walk-around/travel lens for my Canon 7D. So far, I have not made up my mind, so I'm stuck with the brick(24-70mm) for now. </p>

<p>My Tamron has been with me for nearly 4 years now, first on my XTi, then my 40D, now my 50D. It is a great lens, very sharp, nice color and contrast, 2.8, light weight, and nice focal range......what more could you ask for? I highly recommend this lens! </p>

<p>Greg - I have both the Tamron 17-50 non-VC and the Canon 17-40L. I bought the Tamron for my wife's Rebel and the Canon for myself because I'm planning on moving from the cropped lens to full-frame. Both have nearly equal IQ. I have evolved to preferring the Tamron, because of it's smaller size, longer reach, and 2.8 aperture. However, the 2.8 is not very relevant for you if you shoot mainly landscapes, and the determining factor is whether you will be definitely moving to a 5D in the <strong>near </strong>future. If so, the 17-40L should be your choice. <br>

Jerry C.</p>

There both good lenses. I bought my canon 17-40 because I knew I was upgrading to 5d2. However, I also have and

use often the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I would make sure whatever you get wick work well on full frame.

<p>The "Tamron will be significantly sharper." Sorry, but I don't buy that statement. The EF 17-40mm f/4L lens is razor sharp - I imagine that you would need to shoot with a prime lens to get better results and even then I expect that improvements would be in color and contrast, not sharpness. The 17-40mm stands up very well to the much more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8L.<br>

If you plan on staying with the Canon line - eventually moving to a full frame (which I understand is Canon's long term strategy to get us all sucked in), then invest in the 17-40mm and be happy. It is an outstanding lens. Good luck!</p>

<p>The "Tamron will be significantly sharper." Sorry, but I don't buy that statement. The EF 17-40mm f/4L lens is razor sharp - I imagine that you would need to shoot with a prime lens to get better results and even then I expect that improvements would be in color and contrast, not sharpness. The 17-40mm stands up very well to the much more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8L.<br>

If you plan on staying with the Canon line - eventually moving to a full frame (which I understand is Canon's long term strategy to get us all sucked in), then invest in the 17-40mm and be happy. It is an outstanding lens. Good luck!</p>

<p>The "Tamron will be significantly sharper." Sorry, but I don't buy that statement. The EF 17-40mm f/4L lens is razor sharp - I imagine that you would need to shoot with a prime lens to get better results and even then I expect that improvements would be in color and contrast, not sharpness. The 17-40mm stands up very well to the much more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8L.<br>

If you plan on staying with the Canon line - eventually moving to a full frame (which I understand is Canon's long term strategy to get us all sucked in), then invest in the 17-40mm and be happy. It is an outstanding lens. Good luck!</p>

I also highly recommend the Tamron 17-50, though I use mine for street portraits on my crop body cam.

Outstanding lens and a stop faster than the 17-40. Comes with a nice case and a six year warranty. Much less

expensive, too.

<p>Canon resale is always excellent if you take care of your equipment. I find I keep certain lenses but trade others I don't use a lot. I consider it "renting". The strategy is good so long as the brand is Canon. All else being equal, I would buy Canon because it will always hold it's value. And, my 17-40 Canon is one of my keepers.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 both non-IS) and use them both with my 7D. Great lenses at a fair price. Canon's prices are crazy and have only become worse.</p>

<p>My 17-40mm L is razor sharp. My problem with third party lenses is that they 'hunt' in low light, otherwise I haven't a problem. I'd go 17-40 mm L but that's my opinion so no shouting at me now.</p>